2 ms·
Surely there's a middle ground between culty techno-raptures and literally zero value? Of course there's hype. Turns out I'm older than you are. I've seen hype
by SamPatt 2y ago
Surely there's a middle ground between culty techno-raptures and literally zero value?
Of course there's hype. Turns out I'm older than you are. I've seen hype cycles. I've also seen incredible progress.
Why not acknowledge that hype exists and LLMs aren't perfect, but that many people find value in them already and there appears to be a positive trend in their capability?
Knowledge of history is knowledge of technological progress. Hype cycles don't negate that.
I hear being tired though. Let's watch and see what happens.
- jcgrillo 2y agoOh I agree LLMs are interesting, and many people are excited about them, but I don't think the utility has been demonstrated. I'll grant you plenty of people state they've been made more productive, but I really prefer objective measures especially in this overhyped fomo-riddled information environment. So until someone demonstrates objectively that these tools actually make the business of producing and running software more efficient, there's zero value. Even then, it remains to be seen whether these efficiency gains (if any) are lasting and sufficiently great to offset the material cost of running the models, and the social cost in the organizations that run them. It's hard to imagine how they could be worth the trillions the market expects. Sure, they seem to be getting cheaper and to some degree more accurate, but it's extremely dangerous to extrapolate. So I won't. Neither should you or anyone else. If these things are actually any good for something show, don't tell. EDIT: My "investment thesis" on this is that it's a huge bubble, and this "AI" hype will ultimately erase many times more value than it will create. I really hope I'm wrong, we'll see.